Edit Preferences
Logout
MathIsTruth's Comments (180)
View Comments:
Sort:
1 - 25 of 180
VIDEO: Scuffle Ensues when Neo-Nazis Unfurl Hitler Flag at Tea Party Rally
Commented Nov 16, 2009 at 15:25:07 in Politics
“A distinction without a difference.
Notice how in order to feel comfortable with your comment you needed to believe that the Europeans stole this land "thousands" of years ago when it was only hundreds?
All your huffing and puffing is about being in denial about what happened. What happened was that a bunch of people came to this land, and colonized it without the least little interest in whether the current residents wanted that to happen or not.
You are the beneficiary of that. So you spin it such that "it's okay". For whatever reason you dislike some class of foreigners. So you spin THAT such that when they do something similar (but less violent) than our ancestors, "it's not okay".”
Notice how in order to feel comfortable with your comment you needed to believe that the Europeans stole this land "thousands" of years ago when it was only hundreds?
All your huffing and puffing is about being in denial about what happened. What happened was that a bunch of people came to this land, and colonized it without the least little interest in whether the current residents wanted that to happen or not.
You are the beneficiary of that. So you spin it such that "it's okay". For whatever reason you dislike some class of foreigners. So you spin THAT such that when they do something similar (but less violent) than our ancestors, "it's not okay".”
Angry23 replied on Nov 16, 2009 at 15:48:27
“MathIsTruth: it wasn't hundreds. It was in terms of the Great Plains not even two hundred! We can't use plural.”
VIDEO: Scuffle Ensues when Neo-Nazis Unfurl Hitler Flag at Tea Party Rally
Commented Nov 16, 2009 at 15:17:51 in Politics
“Of course not.
I'm saying that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
I'm saying that this holier-than-thou attitude that there is something horrible and criminal about "illegal aliens" is pure hypocrisy.
I'm saying what we should do is be more compassionate towards people who are struggling to take care of their families, and doing whatever it takes to do so.”
I'm saying that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
I'm saying that this holier-than-thou attitude that there is something horrible and criminal about "illegal aliens" is pure hypocrisy.
I'm saying what we should do is be more compassionate towards people who are struggling to take care of their families, and doing whatever it takes to do so.”
VIDEO: Scuffle Ensues when Neo-Nazis Unfurl Hitler Flag at Tea Party Rally
Commented Nov 16, 2009 at 14:08:12 in Politics
“Um, "this country" is mainly populated by Europeans who stole it from the Native Americans.
Pretty much ALL of us are illegal immigrants.”
Pretty much ALL of us are illegal immigrants.”
RachelMc replied on Nov 16, 2009 at 14:28:03
“Umm i was waiting on this sorry comment about native americans and america being stolen away thousands of years ago. well today in 2009 america is an establish country like any other country, that have rules that ppl must follow to some extent. just like america i will bet u any kind of money that other countries were fought over and taken away from some1 else that used to occupy it before. that does not mean that if u disagree with the history of how the country was founded, hundreds of years later one does not have to follow immigration laws. so stop it. u can call yourself an illegal all u but dont project.”
touchman replied on Nov 16, 2009 at 14:27:30
“So, are you saying we should all leave now?”
Palin Usurped "Concession" Speech
Commented Nov 08, 2009 at 20:08:23 in Politics
“Which, by the way, provided one additional and unexpected vote for health care reform last night!
Thank you Sarah!!”
Thank you Sarah!!”
FHTB replied on Nov 09, 2009 at 05:58:20
“LOL...yes, thanks, Sarah and all the Loudmouth Teabaggers...the more you open your ignorant traps, the more you will lose...”
Greg Petty replied on Nov 08, 2009 at 22:11:36
“Palin the gift that keeps on giving, priceless”
Dud, Baby, Dud: The Lesson of Doug Hoffman
Commented Nov 04, 2009 at 16:47:05 in New York
“Um, he lost in a race that was supposed to be a slam-dunk for the righties.
Remember, the Dem candidate was just a throw-away choice. He was just token opposition for the Republican. The Democratic party made no effort to actually try to win this district at the outset.
Hoffman lost to a warm-body, no-big-deal Democratic candidate.”
Remember, the Dem candidate was just a throw-away choice. He was just token opposition for the Republican. The Democratic party made no effort to actually try to win this district at the outset.
Hoffman lost to a warm-body, no-big-deal Democratic candidate.”
Why I'm Optimistic About Maine
Commented Oct 17, 2009 at 11:40:45 in Politics
“But I AM open to the possibility that I'm wrong. I gave you specific guidance in my previous message as to how you could move the views of those who disagree with you in a different direction. (That is, define "need' in more detail. Give examples.)
But you just repeated your vague attack on "social science" in general, and told another anecdote. How could I possibly reply to your story about your Dad's class? I wasn't there.
The point is that people have studied the question you have asked. All peer-reviewed studies have shown that kids do well in same-sex homes. NO studies have shown the opposite.
No, that's not the same as utter certainty. But it does say that the probability is extremely high....near 100%... that raising children in a same-sex home in harmless. And therefore, that there is no possible justification for the government to discriminate in adoption laws.”
But you just repeated your vague attack on "social science" in general, and told another anecdote. How could I possibly reply to your story about your Dad's class? I wasn't there.
The point is that people have studied the question you have asked. All peer-reviewed studies have shown that kids do well in same-sex homes. NO studies have shown the opposite.
No, that's not the same as utter certainty. But it does say that the probability is extremely high....near 100%... that raising children in a same-sex home in harmless. And therefore, that there is no possible justification for the government to discriminate in adoption laws.”
Why I'm Optimistic About Maine
Commented Oct 17, 2009 at 11:27:44 in Politics
“Regarding "social science". If you mean that social science can not precisely measure happiness (or something subjective like that), then of course you are correct.
But social science is certainly able to measure objective criteria. How well does a child do in school? How many friends does a child have? Juvenile delinquency rates? Health.
And, yes, you can survey children where you do ask various questions about their state of mind, and then look for statistical differences between the responses of children from both types of homes.
If you measure everything and anything you can think of and find no differences, what's left? Your biased opinion?”
But social science is certainly able to measure objective criteria. How well does a child do in school? How many friends does a child have? Juvenile delinquency rates? Health.
And, yes, you can survey children where you do ask various questions about their state of mind, and then look for statistical differences between the responses of children from both types of homes.
If you measure everything and anything you can think of and find no differences, what's left? Your biased opinion?”
Why I'm Optimistic About Maine
Commented Oct 17, 2009 at 11:11:55 in Politics
“What you call "personal experience" is what in general is called "anecdotal data". It would seem obvious that even if imperfect, a scientific study can create a list of criteria and then evaluate children in both types of homes. They can even do so in a blind study. How could your comparatively limited experience possibly stack up to that?
What you don't understand is that your non-scientific "belief" depends on your vague use of language. You said in your original post that children "need" a mom and a dad.
For there to be any meaning to your statement, you must more clearly define your use of the word "need". In other words, as a minimum, give a list of things that you think a child "needs" that he would get with a mom and dad, but would not get with same-gender parents.
Then we can have an intelligent discussion. We can double check your list to see if some of your criteria are circular, whether people consider some of your list items to truly be "needs", and to what extent those needs are met in different parental situations.”
What you don't understand is that your non-scientific "belief" depends on your vague use of language. You said in your original post that children "need" a mom and a dad.
For there to be any meaning to your statement, you must more clearly define your use of the word "need". In other words, as a minimum, give a list of things that you think a child "needs" that he would get with a mom and dad, but would not get with same-gender parents.
Then we can have an intelligent discussion. We can double check your list to see if some of your criteria are circular, whether people consider some of your list items to truly be "needs", and to what extent those needs are met in different parental situations.”
AZIndependant replied on Oct 17, 2009 at 11:22:04
“Your trying to quantify social sciences in a way that simply isn't meaningful. You can do that with physics, you can't do that in any reliable way with psychology.
The kids flocked to my dad. They came from single parent households. Were they simply needy because they needed two parents (regardless of gender) and not one? Maybe. But if that's the case, why didn't they line up to sit on the lap of one of the women who helped in the class?
I'm not suggesting my experience is scientific. I'm not suggesting that I couldn't be wrong...maybe I could be. I'm telling you what I believe based upon what I have experienced. I'm telling you, as someone who has studied science a big in my education, that social sciences are a crap shoot. Not ONE of you would be here in support of those studies if they had reached the opposite conclusion. You're arguing for the soundness of social sciences because they have reached a conclusion (at least in a couple of sited studies here) that you agree with.
I'm open to the possibility that I may be wrong. You should be open to the possibility that you may be wrong as well.”
The kids flocked to my dad. They came from single parent households. Were they simply needy because they needed two parents (regardless of gender) and not one? Maybe. But if that's the case, why didn't they line up to sit on the lap of one of the women who helped in the class?
I'm not suggesting my experience is scientific. I'm not suggesting that I couldn't be wrong...maybe I could be. I'm telling you what I believe based upon what I have experienced. I'm telling you, as someone who has studied science a big in my education, that social sciences are a crap shoot. Not ONE of you would be here in support of those studies if they had reached the opposite conclusion. You're arguing for the soundness of social sciences because they have reached a conclusion (at least in a couple of sited studies here) that you agree with.
I'm open to the possibility that I may be wrong. You should be open to the possibility that you may be wrong as well.”
Why I'm Optimistic About Maine
Commented Oct 17, 2009 at 10:42:48 in Politics
“Having a "belief" that contradicts knowledge is a very silly thing to do.
There's nothing wrong with thinking, "Gee, I bet children do better raised by two people of different genders than two people of the same gender."
BUT THEN, you have to ask: Is that true? Then look to see if the question has already been answered. It's not as if you are the first person to wonder this.
It turns out, AZIndependant, that people have studied this exact question, and the answer is known. Children do just fine being raised by same-sex couples. I repeat: THE ANSWER IS KNOWN.
You are NOT entitled to your "belief" when it is contradicted by hard, cold facts.”
There's nothing wrong with thinking, "Gee, I bet children do better raised by two people of different genders than two people of the same gender."
BUT THEN, you have to ask: Is that true? Then look to see if the question has already been answered. It's not as if you are the first person to wonder this.
It turns out, AZIndependant, that people have studied this exact question, and the answer is known. Children do just fine being raised by same-sex couples. I repeat: THE ANSWER IS KNOWN.
You are NOT entitled to your "belief" when it is contradicted by hard, cold facts.”
AZIndependant replied on Oct 17, 2009 at 10:55:19
“My experience tells me something different. I've posted on that above. Finding truth in the physical sciences is one thing...the scientific method helps us know when something can be proved or disproved.
There is no such "scientific method" that can be applied to the social sciences. Studies can only suggest based upon observation what they believe is likely to be true, but in virtually every case they cannot speak with certainty. They do not KNOW that children are as good off with two parents of the same gender.
Again, I'm leaning on personal experience. I'll have to go look at the studies folks have posted. But I'm quite sure that when I start looking at studies, I'm likely to find a dissenting study for every study posted.”
There is no such "scientific method" that can be applied to the social sciences. Studies can only suggest based upon observation what they believe is likely to be true, but in virtually every case they cannot speak with certainty. They do not KNOW that children are as good off with two parents of the same gender.
Again, I'm leaning on personal experience. I'll have to go look at the studies folks have posted. But I'm quite sure that when I start looking at studies, I'm likely to find a dissenting study for every study posted.”
Gay Rights Speech: What Should Obama Say Tonight?
Commented Oct 10, 2009 at 20:45:59 in Politics
“If anything, the problem is homophobes (or other bigots) in the military, not gays in the military.
It seems clear to me that problems might be caused by soldiers who hate their fellow servicemen.”
It seems clear to me that problems might be caused by soldiers who hate their fellow servicemen.”
What Would a Nobel Laureate Tell the Gays?
Commented Oct 10, 2009 at 10:34:47 in Politics
“Gravel and Kucinich had 0% probability of being elected. If either had been nominated, McCain would have been elected, would have been overwhelmed by the stress of the job, and Sarah Palin would be president now.”
Gay Rights Speech: What Should Obama Say Tonight?
Commented Oct 10, 2009 at 09:33:43 in Politics
“I find it strange that you seem to believe that it is only "activist gay organizations" that support the notion of America enforcing the principles upon which it was founded. Furthermore, that the only reason you can imagine that a person might be in favor of liberty is as a way to make money.
You are, of course, sadly mistaken on both counts. It is NOT just gays and gay organizations that support liberty for all. And the reasons for doing so have to do with more important things than money.
But given that you understand none of this, there is no point in trying to discuss with you the appropriate prioritization of gay rights vs the economy, etc.”
You are, of course, sadly mistaken on both counts. It is NOT just gays and gay organizations that support liberty for all. And the reasons for doing so have to do with more important things than money.
But given that you understand none of this, there is no point in trying to discuss with you the appropriate prioritization of gay rights vs the economy, etc.”
clueless JD replied on Oct 10, 2009 at 12:22:22
“I'm glad you get it.
1) "undo Bush"; 2) gays in the military; 3) gay marriage”
1) "undo Bush"; 2) gays in the military; 3) gay marriage”
"Toughest Sheriff in America" Stripped of ICE Agent Status
Commented Oct 06, 2009 at 21:09:38 in Politics
“Useless politicians love to cover up their own failures by convincing people such as yourself that the nations problems are caused by people like illegal aliens.
You bought it hook, line and sinker. You allowed your hatred and poor analytical abilities to be exploited.
Aliens are not the cause of America's problems. America's problems are caused by poor politicians and people with poor analytical abilities.”
You bought it hook, line and sinker. You allowed your hatred and poor analytical abilities to be exploited.
Aliens are not the cause of America's problems. America's problems are caused by poor politicians and people with poor analytical abilities.”
Rare AP Photo Captures Deadly Attack on U.S. Marine in Afghanistan -- Pentagon Protests
Commented Sep 04, 2009 at 18:08:38 in Media
“Read the constitution.
We own the military.”
We own the military.”
Rare AP Photo Captures Deadly Attack on U.S. Marine in Afghanistan -- Pentagon Protests
Commented Sep 04, 2009 at 18:08:03 in Media
“Wars ARE political agendas.
Joining the military IS a political act.
You seem to only care about HIDING his image to push YOUR political agenda.
The ONLY hope for anyone ever to make a decision NOT based on politics is to be fully informed on a topic.”
Joining the military IS a political act.
You seem to only care about HIDING his image to push YOUR political agenda.
The ONLY hope for anyone ever to make a decision NOT based on politics is to be fully informed on a topic.”
Rare AP Photo Captures Deadly Attack on U.S. Marine in Afghanistan -- Pentagon Protests
Commented Sep 04, 2009 at 16:31:11 in Media
“If support for the military effort in Afghanistan hinges on people living under the delusion that the events depicted in the photo are not occurring on a daily basis, then I would have to say that the support that exists is artificially over-inflated.
By the way, the event depicted was not a private event. It happened in public and was witnessed by our enemies.”
By the way, the event depicted was not a private event. It happened in public and was witnessed by our enemies.”
Rare AP Photo Captures Deadly Attack on U.S. Marine in Afghanistan -- Pentagon Protests
Commented Sep 04, 2009 at 16:17:27 in Media
“It is good that photos such as these are being published. Truth is truth. Denial of truth is the root of much evil.
But one has to wonder the political motivations behind the AP having a different attitude towards covering a war depending on who is president.”
But one has to wonder the political motivations behind the AP having a different attitude towards covering a war depending on who is president.”
Verizon, Lowe's, Johnson & Johnson, 13 more drop Glenn Beck
Commented Aug 27, 2009 at 11:38:16 in Media
“I 100% totally disagree with you. Or maybe I agree with you, since you contradict yourself. If you agree no one has to give Beck their dime, then you agree with the choices being made by Beck's former advertisers. (After all, don't THEY also have the right not to be seen as backing speech that they either find abhorrent or that they feel would be bad for their own business?)
And don't people who oppose Beck's distortions, outright lies, evil perspectives and paranoid rantings have a right to loudly oppose him and to spend their consumer dollars accordingly?”
And don't people who oppose Beck's distortions, outright lies, evil perspectives and paranoid rantings have a right to loudly oppose him and to spend their consumer dollars accordingly?”
ReedYoung replied on Aug 27, 2009 at 15:27:15
“... and to free speech about WHY we won't spend our money in any way that will support glenn beck.”
Verizon, Lowe's, Johnson & Johnson, 13 more drop Glenn Beck
Commented Aug 26, 2009 at 23:09:19 in Media
“This has nothing to do with free speech. Do you have a "right" to say anything you want on prime time nationally broadcast television? Of course not. Beck's "rights" to be on TV start and end with business decisions by his employer.
Beck is a dishonest demagogue. No one should be paying Beck to spread his hate. He certainly DOES, however, have a freedom of speech right to spread hate on his own dime.”
Beck is a dishonest demagogue. No one should be paying Beck to spread his hate. He certainly DOES, however, have a freedom of speech right to spread hate on his own dime.”
mahonpe replied on Aug 27, 2009 at 02:34:40
“You do not have to give him your dime, but where do you believe that and organization has the right to bully others into doing what they think is right. I support your right to disagree with Beck, and all people outhere in this world are some sort of a "IST". But when "IST" get into an organized group of any kind to ban together against someone is wrong.”
While My Guitar (Hero) Gently Weeps
Commented Aug 22, 2009 at 13:47:57 in Entertainment
“My kid got interested in playing (real) guitar due to GH and RB. Learning another instrument and playing in school band did not have that effect.
But thanks for the parenting advice, anyhow. Here's some for you in return: A one-size-fits-all attitude toward parenting is a recipe for failure.”
But thanks for the parenting advice, anyhow. Here's some for you in return: A one-size-fits-all attitude toward parenting is a recipe for failure.”
O'Reilly, Beck, Olbermann and Maddow: Venomous Snakes?
Commented Aug 13, 2009 at 02:50:33 in Media
“How does one report the news without the slant? No such thing.
"Unbiased reporting" is a myth.”
"Unbiased reporting" is a myth.”
Al Franken and the Sotomayor Hearings: A Senate Star Is Born
Commented Jul 30, 2009 at 18:41:55 in Politics
“Agreed. Incredibly, a man who can't even RECITE one lousy sentence from the Constitution was put in charge of interpreting it.
But I guess it's to be expected from an intellect that thinks interpreting the Constitution is as simple as "calling balls and strikes".”
But I guess it's to be expected from an intellect that thinks interpreting the Constitution is as simple as "calling balls and strikes".”
Al Franken and the Sotomayor Hearings: A Senate Star Is Born
Commented Jul 30, 2009 at 18:28:57 in Politics
“If everybody kept all the money they earned, they would have money and nothing else. What a dumb concept.”
Obama Was Right About the Gates Arrest
Commented Jul 27, 2009 at 00:29:54 in Politics
“Really? And who caused the disturbance?
Gates was yelling at the cop in his own home, where the cop had loitered, long after he had any legitimate business there. The cop knew he couldn't arrest him there, so he baited Gates into stepping outside so he pretend that a guy yelling at a cop on his own porch was a crime. It is painfully clear that it was the COP who created the so-called disturbance.”
Gates was yelling at the cop in his own home, where the cop had loitered, long after he had any legitimate business there. The cop knew he couldn't arrest him there, so he baited Gates into stepping outside so he pretend that a guy yelling at a cop on his own porch was a crime. It is painfully clear that it was the COP who created the so-called disturbance.”
Jeany replied on Jul 27, 2009 at 01:52:21
“Remember Chicago 1968. In case you're not old enough, you'll find it under "police riots."
The more I think about this situation, to more I think Gates should bring charges against Crowley. This thing stinks.”
The more I think about this situation, to more I think Gates should bring charges against Crowley. This thing stinks.”
Obama Was Right About the Gates Arrest
Commented Jul 27, 2009 at 00:26:09 in Politics
“What "side" did Obama take? The government's side (that is, the city of Cambridge's side) is that no crime was committed and Gates should not have been arrested. Gates' side is that no crime was committed and Gates should not have been arrested.
What other side is there? The policemen's? Read the policemen's reports. No crime (on Gates' part) is described in either report. It was just a couple of stupid cops. One of them had a bruised ego, and like many cops was a bully and/or corrupted by power. The fact that the guy he was dealing with was black likely played a part in his emotional, non-professional, incompetent response.”
What other side is there? The policemen's? Read the policemen's reports. No crime (on Gates' part) is described in either report. It was just a couple of stupid cops. One of them had a bruised ego, and like many cops was a bully and/or corrupted by power. The fact that the guy he was dealing with was black likely played a part in his emotional, non-professional, incompetent response.”
1 - 25 of 180
